"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
link.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:21 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick
at
wrote on 3/2/05 5:46 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..



snip...


===

So, coward, why are you being a scumbag and refusing to
name
those valid and
valuable purposes of assault weapons?
======================
Because, liarman, unlike you, I don't purport to be the
arbiter of what is useful, valuable, or necessary. That
is
the perogative of eack person, liarman.

Why did you say weapons also have valid and valuable
purposes
if you were not prepared to name them?

What a coward!
==================
Nope. Because, unlike you, I don't pretend to be the
arbiter
of
what is and is not a valuable use for 'any' product.

You said that assault weapons have value. That's just an
empty
assertion
unless you are prepared to state the value. Grow up.
===========================
You've claimed alot of things here in this group, and have
yet to
back any of those assertion up with anything but your lies.
Talk
about emptiness, that's the whole of your writings. Why
now
must everyone else bend to your ignorance, liarman? Again,
what
is of 'value' is different to different people. Why should
I
presume to speak for everyine just because you feel you can,
liarman?

What a weasel!
===============
No weasel about it, liarman. I don't claim to be the arbiter
of everyone elses ideas like you do.

But you nevertheless claim that assault weapons have value.
==================
Yes.



If the value (which would have to be named) is not comparable
to the value of driving a car, then the analogy with cars
fails.
===================
No, it does not, because the value of cars is also dependent on
the person making the decision of what is valuable, liarman.
Man, you really are this stupid, aren't you?



Understand, fool?
==================
Apparently you don't. that's plainly obvious, liarman.

Tink says:
===============
The fact that he showed them a higher
law, and exercised soverign charity toward the woman is another issue.
He did not deny the right of the civil law to exercise capital
punishment, which would support the equal right of the civil law today
to also exercise capital punisment. This would be in conflict with the
liberal stand against capital punisment, and support the conservative
position today, which gets to the heart of your contention regarding
the issue of capital law today.
=================

I'm trying to follow you're reasoning here, but I think you got it
twisted. Let me try to untangle and you'll correct me if I got it
wrong.

He did not deny the civil law, you say. I'm no expert, so I'll take
your word for that. But, clearly, from your interpretation, he thought
the civil law was nuts. As you say, "he showed them a higher law."

I have to think that you believe his advocacy of the "higher law" was
the right thing. Which, now that I've untangled it all, leads me to
conclude that you think the "higher law" is the better law. And, of
course, that's the essence of my question. Faced with a public policy
option, "What would Jesus do?"

Answer: "Enact policy that is congruent with the higher law." Remember,
we're not talking about obeying or not obeying civil law. we're talking
about making civil law that is consistent with "What Jesus would do."

So my question to you, Tink, is: "would you vote for a politician who
would enact civil laws that are consistent with the higher law or one
who would contravene the higher law?" As a Christian, I think you have
an obligation to do the former. In the case of capital punishment, you
have not convinced me that Jesus would advocate the imposition of the
death penalty. If you think he would, let me hear your arguments.

frtzw906

Tink says:
===================
Where is the liberal claim to exclusive right to being charitable. And
would
that mean the opposite of conservatives. And so we quickly come to a
deadend, by approching from a religious viewpoint, you cannot make
clear distinctions that would separate the issues into distinct and
debatable packages.
===================

Fair enough. Let's not talk about liberal vs conservative. Let's not
try to define "charitable". Let's keep it at the level of specific
public policy options (and the politicians that advocate them).

Faced with a public policy option, I maintain that you, if you're the
Christian you claim to be, need to ask of that option: "What would
jesus do?" And then, you need to vote for the politician who can best
implement that option.

frtzw906

TnT says:
==============
Contextually, the men brought the woman to Jesus because they were
trying to trap Jesus into denying the authority of the civil law in
order to have grounds to arrest Him.
==================

Clearly no laws against entrapment, eh?

What about probable cause?

Nasty guys, those Romans (I guessing they were Romans).

frtzw906

in article , rick at
wrote on 3/3/05 4:30 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
link.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:18 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick
at
wrote on 3/2/05 5:59 PM:


snip...


You're telling me there aren't poor people in the
US in
isolated or slum
areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at
their
convenience? Get
real.
====================
Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about
their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience
of
the
medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a
medical
facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2
1/2
years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment.
======================
Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have
agreed to that, now.

Nono. Stop being dishonest.

I never said no one in Canada is waiting for treatment.
================
Yes, you did.

No, I didn't. I respond to your goofy claim that the
people
in
your example were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment when
in
fact they were all in current receipt of care.

Stop being such a scumbag. You owe me an apology but your
are
too weak and too much of coward to do it.
======================
Nope. Where's yours, liarman?

I responded to your allegation that the people featured in
the
story were
waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag
for
taking my
statement out of that context and trying to say that I was
referring to all
persons in Canada.
=====================
No, you replied that no one is waiting for treatment.
liarman.


You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of
a
coward to do
it.
+=================
No, I don't. But it seems you have forgotten about your, eh
liarman. Proof that people are dying in waiting lines in
Canada
have been presented to you, yet you are still spewing about
a lie
you have already taken back. Why is that, liarman? Don't
want
to discuss your continued willful ignorance?

What happened is you blathered on about the people in
Newfoundland waiting 2
1/2 years for treatment, and I responded that they are not
waiting for
treatment. And they aren't. So stop being a scumbag, stop
being a coward,
suck it up and apologize. Or are you just too weak?
========================
ROTFLMAO You really are this desperate now, aren't you,
liarman? I'm not the one that was blathering about it.

Yeah, you were.
=====================
No fool, I wasn't. It was one site out of several I posted. And
it was the only time I brought it up.

Right. You were the one that brought it up.



You were rambling on about how people were waiting 2 1/2 years
for treatment in the story about people in Newfoundland. They
aren't waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and I told you so.
Then you tried to say that I was stating that no one in Canada
waits for anything, which is not what I said at all. You are a
scumbag.
==========================
That was but one example to show that you were lying, and still
are, liarman. You did make that claim fool, because the post you
were repliying to was all about waiting for health care in
Canada. You have now decided to tap dance by claiming it was
about only one site, and one example.

You said that I claimed no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never
said that. I said that the people in your example were not waiting 2 1/2
years for treatment, and they were not. As it states in the very article you
cited, they were all receiving constant care.

You owe me an apology.

in article , rick at
wrote on 3/3/05 4:30 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
link.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick
at
wrote on 3/2/05 6:01 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ps.com...
KMAN, I was pleased with the effort Tink took to get a
handle
on this
situation. And, from my own perspective, I've done some
reading about
various systems and have at least a passing
acquaintance
with
a variety
of European models (I now know the difference between
the
Beveridge and
the Bismark approaches to healthcare funding). In that
sense,
all of
this has been useful for me.

It's too bad rick could never see the value in such
discourse.
====================
LOL I tried, fool. All I got was a bunch of jingoistic
chest-thumping lies.

Perhaps you should stop telling them, then.
=====================
I didn't lie, liarman. People are on long waiting lists
in
Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for
that
treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove
this,
yet
you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that
liarman?
Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet?

I'm not lying about anything.
=====================
Yes, you are, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in
Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that
treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove
this, yet
you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that
liarman?
Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet?

I don't think you've been paying attention and you are making
a fool of
yourself. You might want to ask Tinkerntom to point you to
the post (long
ago) where I conceded that the way I framed the question
allowed you to meet
the burden of proof I requested.
==============================
Yet the proof was presented, and it proves you are a liar
regardless of how you make your claim.

All it proves is that I told you the people in Newfoundland
were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right.

You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your
dishonesty.
==========================
That was but one example to show that you were lying

Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for
treatment.

You are being extremely dishonest. You owe me an apology, but you are too
big of a coward to admit that you are wrong. You are a scumbag.

in article , rick at
wrote on 3/3/05 4:31 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
link.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick
at
wrote on 3/2/05 6:03 PM:


snip..

You've captured it perfectly. I got so frustrated with
rick's
spew that I tried to pin him down and make him focus
more
on
his wild claims about Canadian health care, and all
that
happened instead is he took the dishonest tactic of
picking
on the wording of my attempts to make him focus.
=====================
No, there was no misleading by me of your lies, er
wording,
liarman. You made direct declarative statements that
you
cannot back up. I focused entirely on your lies that
no 1)
no one is waiting for treatment in Canada,

Scumbag. You know very well what I declared was that the
people
in Newfoundland were not waiting for 2 1/2 years for
treatment - the lie YOU were telling. But you are too big
of
a
coward to admit it.
======================
Nope. that's not what you said

Yes it is.

I responded to your allegation that the people featured in
the
story were
waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag
for
taking my
statement out of that context and trying to say that I was
referring to all
persons in Canada.
========================
Nope. you claimed no one was waiting for treatment

No. I said that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting
for treatment as
you had falsely claimed. Your refusal to apolgize for your
dishonesty is
further cementing your reputation as a coward and scumbag.
============================
Nope. That's what you are trying to explain away now

I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2
years for treatment and I was right.
==============
No, you weren't. You were lying as usual. Their treatment did
not start for at least 2 1/2 years.

As stated in the article:

"While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being
investigated andfollowed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an
emergency scan gets one," said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of
diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's.

They are waiting for a specific specialized test. They are not waiting for
treatment.

You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your
dishonesty.
==========================
That was but one example to show that you were lying

Whatever you think it was, your claim that I said no one in Canada waits for
treatment is false. You owe me an apology. But you are too week and too much
of coward to do what you know if right.

Michael Daly wrote:
On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Or are you saying that it is in fact impossible, based on the
separation of the spiritual realm, and the world where we now
dwell,
and that we are just blowing smoke if we claim such an event has
ever,

It's fairly simple, in fact. The page you linked to is interesting,
as
it demonstrates my point. There is no description of God there.

There is the ambiguous reference to making man in His likeness and
image,
but, as I was taught in grade school, that _may_ only be a reference
to
our mental capacities and ability to choose, not that our physical
form
is the same. No direct reference in the Bible indicates that we have
the same general physical form. Those that are said to have seen God
did not describe Him.

If we are to try to prove God's existence in the physical world, we
have to be aware of His presence in the physical world as a physical
being. The Bible does not offer any evidence of what to expect.
Nor does it show that He is always around in physical form but,
rather,
suggests that He chooses to reveal Himself only on occasion. Since
we don't know what to look for noe when to look, we are at a serious
disadvantage.

The spiritual world cannot be touched or felt. We have no device to
detect it. People who claim to be in touch with the spiritual
world (spiritualists) are considered frauds. Belief in spiritualism,
within the Roman Catholic Church for example, is wrong. This is
not the same thing as getting in touch with the spiritual world by,
say, praying. That, however, is a one-way street. Any possible
results of praying are covered under the vague "mysterious ways"
and cannot be used reliably as an experimental result.

If you want to move into another religion and discuss worldly gods,
then the situation changes. However, the Judeo-Christian God is
presented in the Bible and that's what we have to work with.


On 2/20, you said, "I have _never_ said that God does not exist. I
have never said that belief in God is a sign of a lack of
intelligence."

Does this mean that you do believe in God?

And is this God the same God that you are referring to now the same
God, as mentioned and quoted in this statement, "the Judeo-Christian
God is presented in the Bible and that's what we have to work with"?

Please excuse the nitpicking right now, for this is very interesting
and thought provoking, but I am wanting to be certain that I understand
what you are saying, and what your basis is for these statements.

I am wanting also to clarify that you are not talking about some other
religion and their gods, which would have no logical connection to the
present conversation of the Judeo-Christian God and whether He has
appeared as God in this past or present world. I don't think you are
making any such reference, but I would like to be absolutely sure, so
that it would not confuse the converstion and flow of logic as the
discussion progresses.




or will ever occur?

I cannot claim to know the future. I leave that to fools like
weiser.

Mike

I also do not know the future, but I do look forward to continuing this
converstion in the future. You made a number of points that I will look
forward to understanding more clearly. TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
===============
The fact that he showed them a higher
law, and exercised soverign charity toward the woman is another
issue.
He did not deny the right of the civil law to exercise capital
punishment, which would support the equal right of the civil law
today
to also exercise capital punisment. This would be in conflict with
the
liberal stand against capital punisment, and support the conservative
position today, which gets to the heart of your contention regarding
the issue of capital law today.
=================

I'm trying to follow you're reasoning here, but I think you got it
twisted. Let me try to untangle and you'll correct me if I got it
wrong.

He did not deny the civil law, you say. I'm no expert, so I'll take
your word for that. But, clearly, from your interpretation, he
thought
the civil law was nuts. As you say, "he showed them a higher law."

I have to think that you believe his advocacy of the "higher law" was
the right thing. Which, now that I've untangled it all, leads me to
conclude that you think the "higher law" is the better law. And, of
course, that's the essence of my question. Faced with a public policy
option, "What would Jesus do?"

Answer: "Enact policy that is congruent with the higher law."
Remember,
we're not talking about obeying or not obeying civil law. we're
talking
about making civil law that is consistent with "What Jesus would do."

So my question to you, Tink, is: "would you vote for a politician who
would enact civil laws that are consistent with the higher law or one
who would contravene the higher law?" As a Christian, I think you
have
an obligation to do the former. In the case of capital punishment,
you
have not convinced me that Jesus would advocate the imposition of the
death penalty. If you think he would, let me hear your arguments.

frtzw906

Let me try to clarify with a less polarizing example.

I as a good Christian, am driving down the road going to church, and I
am running late. In as much as it is very embarassing to get to church
late, and to have everyone turn and look at you as you walk in late,
and I being in a powerful automobile, I am driving 5 mph over the speed
limit. Now in my haste, I fail to notice one of our fine public
servants setting in his police car, on the road side with a radar gun,
checking the speed of passing motorist.

Now this police officer having gotten chewed out by his sargent for not
writing enough tickets recently, is in a bad mood. He sees me go flying
by, and takes it upon himself to come chasing after me with all those
embarassing light and sirens going. He finally catches up with me and
pulls me over just as I turn into the church parking lot. How
embarrassing!

He gets out of his car and strolls up to my window, and asks for
license and registration. I explain to him that I was in a hurry to get
to this very church, and is all this "License and registration" thing
necessary! I got here quicker, with the help of his escort, and now I
will be able to be on time. He does not think that is very humorous,
and he insists on my L&R. After a very long time, with people looking
at me with the police officer and all his lights still going, he
finally figures out how to fill out the form for writing a ticket. You
would think it was the first one he ever wrote.

When he got back to my window, and ask me to sign the ticket, I
protested that I was only going 5 mph over the speed limit. Couldn't he
just let me go this time? Especially since I was going to church, to
study a higher law about God's Love.

He having a bad day gave me a ticket, anyway.

Now should I have to pay the ticket? If I explain to the officer, or
the Judge, that I believe in a higher law, should the judge let me off
from paying. The officer was within the scope of his authority, and of
the civil law which says if a person is speeding, they get a ticket.
The judge is enforcing the law when he fines you $100.00 for speeding.
As far as they are concerned, I can take my higher law, and pound sand,
after I pay my fine.

They could have let me off, which would be benevolent, and charitable
if they had, but nothing says they must. That would not mean that the
civil law is bad if they had. The civil law was written to protect
society in whatever way the society choose that it needs to be
protected. That is not to say that there are not better laws, or even a
higher law, just that the current civil law is the regulating
authority. Can we change the authority, certainly, but in the meantime
we live with the civil law which may include capital punishment
depending on where we live!

Now if our discussion about capital punishment is whether it is the
best way to handle serious offenders of the civil law, that is a
different question. It certainly is one way, and what Jesus did, was
Jesus acknowledged it as a legal process of that particular civil
authority.

You ask what Jesus would do? Even in reference to His own death, being
God, He could have intervened to save himself from the civil
authorities that were going to crucify Him, and yet He submitted to the
claim of their authority, and suffered capital punishment! TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
==============
Contextually, the men brought the woman to Jesus because they were
trying to trap Jesus into denying the authority of the civil law in
order to have grounds to arrest Him.
==================

Clearly no laws against entrapment, eh?

What about probable cause?

Nasty guys, those Romans (I guessing they were Romans).

frtzw906

Well actually they were Jews, not Romans by birth but by conquest. And
yes they were nasty and had some very difficult civil laws to obey, and
not a whole lot of legal protection like we have today. And yet we are
told in Romans 12 to obey the authorities. The early church was also
told to obey as well, as nasty as they were! They even threw them to
the lions for sport! I can be glad for modern civil law. TnT